Issue No. 2 of tile
Herald (Vorbote No. 2, April1916), the Marxist journal of
the Zimmerwald Left, published theses for and against the
self-determination of nations, signed by the Editorial
Board of our Central Organ,
Sotsial-Demokrat,
and by the Editorial Board of the organ of the Polish
Social-Democratic opposition, Gazeta Robotnicza. Above
the reader will find a reprint of the
former[1]
and a translation of the
latter
theses.[15] This is practically the first
time that the question has been presented so extensively in the
international field: it was raised only in respect of Poland in
the discussion carried on in the German Marxist journal
NeueZeit twenty years ago, 1895–96, before the
London International Socialist Congress of 1896, by Rosa
Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky and the Polish “independents” (champions
of the independence of Poland, the Polish Socialist Party), who
represented three different
views.[16] [see
The Rights of Nations to
Self-Determination] Since then, as far as we know, the
question of self-determination has been discussed at all
systematically only by the Dutch and the Poles. Let us hope that
the Herald will succeed in promoting the discussion of
this question, so urgent today, among the British, Americans,
French, Germans and Italians. Official socialism, represented both
by direct supporters of “their own” governments, the Plekhanovs,
Davids and Co., and the undercover defenders of opportunism, the
Kautskyites (among them Axelrod, Martov, Chkheidze and
others), has told so many lies on this question that for a long
time there will inevitably be efforts, on the one hand, to
maintain
silence and evade the issue, and, on the other, workers’
demands for “direct answers” to these “accursed questions”. We
shall try to keep our readers informed of the struggle between the
trends: among socialists abroad.

This question is of specific importance to us Russian
Social-Democrats; the present discussion is a continuation of
the one that took place in 1903 and
1913[17];
during
the war this question has been the cause of some wavering in the
thinking of Party members: it has been made more acute by the
trickery of such prominent leaders of the Gvozdyov or chauvinist
workers’ party as Martov and Chkheidze, in their efforts to
evade the substance of the problem. It is essential, therefore,
to sum up at least the initial results of the discussion that
has been started in the international field.

It will he seen from the theses that our Polish comrades provide
us with a direct answer to some of our arguments, for example,
on Marxism and Proudhonism. In most cases, however, they do not
answer us directly but indirectly, by opposing their
assertions to ours. Let us examine both their direct and
indirect answers.

1. Socialism and the Self-Determination of Nations

We have affirmed that it would be a betrayal of socialism
to refuse to implement the self-determination of
nations under socialism. We are told in reply that “the right of
self-determination is not applicable to a socialist
society”. The difference is a radical one. Where does it stem
from?

“We know,” runs our opponents’ reasoning, “that
socialism will abolish every kind of national oppression since
it abolishes the class interests that lead to it....” What has
this argument about the economic prerequisites for the
abolition of national oppression, which are very well known and
undisputed, to do with a discussion of one of the forms
of political oppression, namely, the forcible retention
of one nation within the state frontiers of another? This is
nothing hut an attempt to evade political questions! And
subsequent arguments further convince us that our
judgement is right: “We have no reason to believe that in a
socialist society, the nation will exist as an economic and
political unit. It will in all probability assume the character
of a cultural and linguistic unit only, because the territorial
division of a socialist cultural zone, if practised at all, can
be made only according to the needs of production and,
furthermore, the question of such a division will naturally not
be decided by individual nations alone and in possession of full
sovereignty [as is required by “the right to
self-determination”], but will be determined jointly
by all the citizens concerned....”

Our Polish comrades like this last argument, on joint
determination instead of self-determination, so much
that they repeat it three times in their theses!
Frequency of repetition, however, does not turn this Octobrist
and reactionary argument into a Social-Democratic argument. All
reactionaries and bourgeois grant to nations forcibly retained
within the frontiers of a given state the right to “determine
jointly” their fate in a common parliament. Wilhelm II also
gives the Belgians the right to “determine jointly” the fate of
the German Empire in a common German parliament.

Our opponents try to evade precisely the point at issue. the
only one that is up for discussion—the right to
secede. This would be funny if it were not so tragic!

Our very first thesis said that the liberation of oppressed
nations implies a dual transformation in the political
sphere: (1) the full equality of nations. This is not disputed
and applies only to what takes place within the state; (2)
freedom of political separation.[2]
This refers to the
demarcation of state frontiers. This only is
disputed. But it is precisely this that our opponents remain
silent about. They do not want to think either about state
frontiers or even about the stabs as such. This is a sort of
“imperialist Economism” like the old Economism of 1894–1902,
which argued in this way: capitalism is victorious,
therefore political questions are a waste of
time. Imperialism is
victorious, therefore political
questions are a waste of time! Such an apolitical
theory is extremely harmful to Marxism.

In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx wrote:
“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There
corresponds to this also a political transition period in which
the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of
the
proletariat.”[18] Up to now this truth has been
indisputable for socialists and it includes the recognition of
the fact that the slate will exist until victorious
socialism develops into full communism. Engels’s dictum about
the withering away of the state is well known. We
deliberately stressed, in the first thesis, that democracy is a
form of state that will also wither away when the state withers
away. And until our opponents replace Marxism by some sort of
“non-state” viewpoint their arguments will constitute one big
mistake.

Instead of speaking about the state (which means, about
the demarcation of its frontiers!),
they speak of a “socialist cultural zone”, i.e., they
deliberately choose an expression that is indefinite in the
sense that all state questions are obliterated! Thus we get a
ridiculous tautology: if there is no state there can, of course,
be no question of frontiers. In that case tile whole
democratic-political programme is unnecessary. Nor will there be
any republic, when the state “withers away”.

The German chauvinist Lensch, in the articles we mentioned in
Thesis 5
(footnote),[3]
quoted an interesting passage from
Engels’s article “The Po and the Rhine”. Amongst other things,
Engels says in this article that in the course of
historical development, which swallowed up a number of small and
non-viable nations, the “frontiers of great and viable European
nations” were being increasingly determined by the “language and
sympathies” of the population. Engels calls these frontiers
“natural”.[19] Such was the case in the
period of progressive capitalism in Europe, roughly from 1848 to
1871. Today, these democratically determined
frontiers are more
and more often being broken down by
reactionary, imperialist capitalism. There is every sign that
imperialism will leave its successor, socialism, a heritage of
less democratic frontiers, a number: of
annexations in Europe and ill other parts of the
world. Is it to he supposed that victorious
socialism, restoring and implementing full democracy all along
the line, will refrain from democratically
demarcating state frontiers and ignore the “sympathies” of the
population? Those questions need only be stated to make it quite
clear that our Polish colleagues are sliding down from Marxism
towards imperialist Economism.

The old Economists, who made a caricature of Marxism, told the
workers that “only the economic” was of importance to
Marxists. The new Economists seem to think either that the
democratic state of victorious socialism will exist without
frontiers (like a “complex of sensations” without matter) or
that frontiers will be delineated “only” in accordance with the
needs of production. In actual fact its frontiers will be
delineated democratically, i.e., in accordance with the
will and “sympathies” of the population. Capitalism
rides roughshod over these sympathies, adding more obstacles to
the rapprochement of nations. Socialism, by oiganising
production without class oppression, by ensuring the
well-being of all members of the state, gives full
play to the “sympathies” of the population, thereby
promoting and greatly accelerating the drawing together and
fusion of the nations.

To give the reader a rest from the heavy and clumsy Economism
let us quote the reasoning of a socialist writer who is outside
our dispute. That writer is Otto Bauer, who also has his own
“pet little point”—“cultural and national autonomy”—but
who argues quite correctly on a large number of most important
questions. For example, in Chapter 29 of his book The
National Question and Social-Democracy, be was doubly right
in noting the use of national ideology to cover up
imperialist policies. In Chapter 30, “Socialism and the
Principle of Nationality”, he says:

“The socialist community will never be able to include whole
nations within its make-up by the use of force. Imagine the
masses of the people, enjoying the blessings of national
culture, baking a full and active part in legislation
and
government, and, finally, supplied with arms—would it be
possible to subordinate such a nation to the rule of an alien
social organism by force? All state power rests on the force of
arms. The present-day people’s army, thanks to an ingenious
mechanism, still constitutes a tool in the hands of a definite
person, family or class exactly like the knightly and mercenary
armies of the past. The army of the democratic community of a
socialist society is nothing but the people armed, since it
consists of highly cultured persons, working without compulsion
in socialised workshops and taking full part in all spheres of
political life. In such conditions any possibility of alien rule
disappears.”

This is true. It is impossible to abolish national (or
any other political) oppression under capitalism, since this
requires the abolition of classes, i.e., the
introduction of socialism. But while being based on economics,
socialism cannot be reduced to economics alone. A foundation—socialist production—is essential for the abolition
of national oppression, but this foundation must also
carry a democratically organised state, a democratic army,
etc. By transforming capitalism into socialism the proletariat
creates the possibility of abolishing national
oppression; the possibility becomes reality
“only”—“only”!—with the establishment of full
democracy in all spheres, including the delineation of state
frontiers in accordance with the “sympathies” of the population,
including complete freedom to secede. And this, in turn, will
serve as a basis for developing the practical elimination of even the slightest national friction and the
least national mistrust, for an accelerated drawing together and
fusion of nations that will be completed when the state
withers away. This is the Marxist theory, the theory
from which our Polish colleagues have mistakenly departed.

2.Is Democracy “Practicable” Under Imperialism

The old polemic conducted by Polish Social-Democrats against the self-determination of nations is based entirely on
the argument that it is “impracticable” under capitalism. As
long ago as 1903 we, the Iskra supporters, laughed at
this argument in the Programme Commission of the Second
Congress
of the R.S.D:L.P.. and said that it way repetition of the
distortion of Marxism preached by the (late lamented)
Economists. In our theses we dealt with this error in particular
detail and it is precisely on this point, which contains the
theoretical kernel of the whole dispute, that the Polish
comrades did not wish to (or could not?) answer any of
our arguments.

To prove the economic impossibility of self-determination would
require an economic analysis such as that used to prove the
impracticability of prohibiting machines or introducing
labour-money, etc. No one has even attempted to make such an
analysis. No one will maintain that it has been possible to
introduce “labour-money” under capitalism “by way of exception”
in even one country, in the way it was possible for one small
country to realise this impracticable self-determination, even
without war or revolution, “by way of exception”, in the era of
the most rabid imperialism (Norway, 1905).

In general, political democracy is merely one of the possible
forms of superstructure above capitalism
(although it is theoretically the normal one for “pure”
capitalism). The facts show that both capitalism and imperialism
develop within the framework of any political form and
subordinate them all. It is, therefore, a basic
theoretical error to speak of the “impracticability” of
one of the farms and of one of the demands of
democracy.

The absence of an answer to these arguments from our Polish
colleagues compels us to consider the discussion closed on this
point. To make it graphic, so to say, we made the very concrete
assertion that it would be “ridiculous” to deny the
“practicability” of the restoration of Poland today, making it
dependent on the strategic and other aspects of the present
war. No reply was forthcoming!

The Polish comrades simply repeated an obviously
incorrect assertion (S. II, 1), saying that “in questions of the
annexation of foreign territories, forms of political democracy
are pushed aside; sheer force is decisive.... Capital will never
allow the people to decide the question of their state
frontiers...” As though “capital” could “allow the people” to
select its civil servants, the servants of imperialism!
Or as though weighty decisions on important democratic
questions, such as the establishment of a republic in
place of a monarchy, or a militia in place of a regular army,
were, in general, conceivable without “sheer
force”. Subjectively, the Polish comrades want to make Marxism
“more profound” but they are doing it altogether
unsuccessfully. Objectively, their phrases about
impracticability are opportunism, because their tacit assumption
is: this is “impracticable” without a series of
revolutions, in the same way as democracy as a whole,
all its demands taken together. is impracticable under
imperialism.

Once only, at the very end of S. II,1, in the discussion on
Alsace, our Polish colleagues abandoned the position of
imperialist Economism and approached the question of one of the
forms of democracy with a concrete answer and not with general
references to the “economic”. And it was precisely this approach
that was wrong! It would, they wrote, he “particularist,
undemocratic” if some Algatians, without asking the
French, were to “impose” on them a union with Alsace, although
part of Alsace was German-oriented and this threatened war!!!
The confusion is amusing: self-determination presumes (this is
in itself clear, and we have given it special emphasis in our
theses) freedom to separate from the oppressor state;
hut the fact that union with a state presumes the
consent of that state is something that is “not
customarily” mentioned in polities ally more than the
“consent” of a capitalist to receive profit or of a
worker to receive wages is mentioned in
economics! It is ridiculous even to speak of Such a
thing.

If one wants to be a Marxist politician, one should, in
speaking of Alsace, attack the German socialist
scoundrels for not fighting for Alsace’s freedom to
secede and attack the French socialist
scoundrels for making their peace with the French bourgeoisie
who want to annex the whole of Alsace by force—and both of
them for serving the imperialism of
“their own” country and for fearing a separate state, even if
only a little one—the thing is to show how
the socialists who recognize self-determination would
solve the problem ill a few weeks without going against the will
of the Alsatians. To argue, instead, about the
horrible danger of the French Alsatians “forcing” themselves on
France is a real pearl.

3. What Is Annexation?

We raised this question in a most definite manner in our theses
(Section 7).[4]
The Polish comrades did not reply to
it: they evaded it, insisting (1) that they are against
annexations and explaining (2) why they are against them. It is
true that these are very important questions. But they are
questions of another kind. If we want our principles to
be theoretically sound at all, if we want them to he clearly and
precisely formulated, we cannot evade the
question of what an annexation is, since this concept
is used in our political propaganda and agitation The
evasion of the question in a discussion between colleagues
cannot be interpreted as anything but desertion of
one’s position.

Why have we raised this question? We explained this when we
raised it. It is because “a protest against annexations is
nothing but recognition of the right to Self-determination”. The
concept of annexation usually includes: (1) the concept of force
(joining by means of force); (2) the concept of oppression by
another nation (the joining of “alien” regions, etc.),
and, sometimes (3) the concept of violation of the
status quo. We pointed this out in the theses and this
did not meet with any criticism.

Can Social-Democrats be against
the use of force in general, it may be asked? Obviously
not. This means that we are against annexations not because they
constitute force, but for some other reason. Nor can
the Social-Democrats be for the status quo.
However you may twist and turn, annexation is
violation of the self-determination of a nation, it is
the establishment of state frontiers contrary to the
will of the population.

To be against annexations means to be in favor of the right to self-determination. To be “against the forcible retention of any nation within the frontiers of a given state” (we deliberately employed this slightly changed formulation of the same idea in Section 4 of our
theses,[5] and the Polish comrades answered us with complete clarity at the beginning of their S. I, 4, that they “are against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the frontiers of the annexing state”)—is the same as
being in favour of the self-determination of nations.

We do not want to haggle over words. If there is a party that
says in its programme (or in a resolution binding on all the
form does not matter) that it is against
annexations,[6]
against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within tile frontiers of its state, we declare our complete agreement in
principle with that party. It would be absurd to insist on the
word “self-determination”. And if there are people in
our Party who want to change words in this
spirit, who want to amend Clause 9 of our Party Programme, we
should consider our differences with such comrades to
he anything but a matter of principle!

The only thing that matter is political clarity and theoretical
soundness of our slogans.

In verbal discussions on this question—the importance of
which nobody will deny, especially now, in view of the
war—we have met the following argument (we have not come
across it in the press): a protest against a known evil
does not necessarily mean recognition of a positive concept that
precludes the evil. This is obviously an unfounded argument and,
apparently, as such has not been reproduced in the press. If a
socialist party declares that it is “against the forcible
retention of an oppressed nation within the frontiers of the
annexing state”, it is thereby committedtorenounce retention by force when it comes to power.

We do not for one moment doubt that if Hindenburg were
to accomplish the semi-conquest of Russia tomorrow and this
semi-conquest were to be expressed by the appearance of a now
Polish state (in connection with the desire of Britain
and France to weaken tsarism somewhat), something that is quite
“practicable” from the standpoint of the economic laws of
capitalism and imperialism, and if, the day after tomorrow, the
socialist revolution were to be victorious in Petrograd,
Berlin and Warsaw, the Polish socialist government, like the
Russian and German socialist governments, would
renounce tile “forcible retention” of, say, the
Ukrainians, “within the frontiers of the Polish state”. If there
were members of the Gazeta Robotnicza Editorial Board
in that government they would no doubt sacrifice their “theses”,
thereby disproving the “theory” that “the right of
self-determination is not applicable to a socialist society”. If
we thought otherwise we should not put a comradely discussion
with the Polish Social-Democrats on the agenda but would rather
conduct a ruthless struggle against them as chauvinists.

Suppose I were to go out into the streets of any European city
and make a public “protest”, which I then published in the
press, against my not being permitted to purchase a man as a
slave. There is no doubt that people would have the right to
regard me as a slave-owner, a champion of the principle, or
system, if you like of slavery. No one would be fooled by the
fact that my sympathies with slavery were expressed in the
negative form of a protest and not in a positive form (“I am for
slavery”). A political “protest” is quite the
equivalent of a political programme; this is so obvious that one
feels rather awkward at having to explain it. In any case, we
are Firmly convinced that on the part of the Zimmerwald Left, at
any rate—we do not speak of the Zimmerwald group as a whole
since it contains Martov and other Kautskyites—we shall not
meet with any “protest” if we say that in the Third
International there will be no place for people capable of
separating a political protest from a political programme, of
counterpoising the one to the other, etc.

Not wishing to haggle over words, we take the liberty of
expressing the sincere hope that the Polish Social-Democrats
will try soon to formulate, officially, their proposal to delete
Clause 9 from our Party Programme (which is also
theirs) and also from the Programme of the
International (the resolution of the 1896 London Congress), as
well as their own definition of the relevant political
concepts of “old and new annexations” and of “the forcible
retention of an oppressed nation within the frontiers of the
annexing state”.

4. For or Against Annexations?

In S. 3 of Part One of their theses the Polish comrades declare
very definitely that they are against any kind of
annexation. Unfortunately, in S. 4 of the same part we find an
assertion that must he considered annexationist. It opens with
the following ... how can it he put more delicately?... the
following strange phrase:

“The starting-point of Social-Democracy’s struggle against
annexations, against the forcible retention of oppressed nations
within the frontiers of the annexing state is renunciation
of any defence ofthe fatherland [the authors’
italics], which, in the era of imperialism, is defence of the
rights Of one’s own bourgeoisie to oppress and plunder foreign
peoples....”

“The starting-point of the struggle against annexations is
renunciation of any defence of the fatherland....” But
ally national war and any national revolt can be called “defence
of the fatherland” and, until now, has been generally
recognised as such! We are against annotations, but...
we mean by this that we are against the annexed waging a war
for their liberation from those who have annexed them,
that we are against the annexed revolting to liberate themselves
from those who have annexed them! Isn’t that an annexationist
declaration?

The authors of the theses motivate their... strange assertion by
saying that “in the era of imperialism” defence of the
fatherland amounts to defence of the right of one’s own
bourgeoisie to oppress foreign peoples. This, however, is true
only in respect of all imperialist war, i.e., in
respect of a war between imperialist powers or groups
of powers, when both belligerents not only oppress
“foreign peoples” but are fighting a war to decide
who shall have a greater share in oppressing foreign
peoples!

The authors seem to present the question of “defence of the
fatherland” very differently from the way it is presented by our
Party. We renounce “defence of the fatherland” in an
imperialist war. This is said as clearly as it can be
in the Manifesto of our Party’s Central Committee and in
the
Berne
resolutions[7]
reprinted in the pamphlet
Socialismand War, which has been published
both in German and French. We stressed this twice in our theses
(footnotes to Sections 4 and
6).[8]
The authors of the Polish
theses seem to renounce defence of the fatherland
in general, i.e., for a national war
as well, believing, perhaps, that in the “era of
imperialism” national wars are impossible. We say
“perhaps” because the Polish comrades have not
expressed this view in their theses.

Such a view is clearly expressed in the theses of the German
internationale group and in the Junius pamphlet which
is dealt with ill a special
article.[9]
In addition to what is
said there, let us note that the national revolt of an annexed
region or country against the annexing country may he called
precisely a revolt and not a war (we have heard this objection
made and, therefore, cite it here, although we do not
think this terminological dispute a serious one). in any case,
hardly anybody would risk denying that annexed Belgium. Serbia,
Galicia and Armenia would call their “revolt” against those who
annexed them “defence of the fatherland” and would do so in
all justice. It looks as if the Polish comrades are
against this type of revolt on the grounds that there
is also a bourgeoisie in these annexed countries which
also oppresses foreign peoples or, more exactly, could
oppress them, since the question is one of the “right
to oppress”. Consequently, the given war or revolt is not
assessed on the strength of its real social content
(the struggle of an oppressed nation for its liberation from the
oppressor nation) but the possible exercise of the
“right to oppress” by a bourgeoisie which is at present
itself oppressed. If Belgium, let us say, is annexed by Germany
in 1917, and in 1918 revolts to secure her liberation, the
Polish comrades will be against her revolt on the grounds that
the Belgian bourgeoisie possess “the right to oppress foreign
peoples”!

There is nothing Marxist or even revolutionary in this
argument. If we do not want to betray socialism we
must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the
bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of
a reactionary class. By refusing to support the revolt of
annexed regions we become, objectively, annexationists. It is
precisely in the “era of imperialism”, which is the era of
nascent social revolution, that the proletariat will today
give especially vigorous support to any revolt of the annexed
regions so that tomorrow, or simultaneously, it may attack the
bourgeoisie of the “great” power that is weakened by the revolt.

The Polish comrades, however, go further in their
annexationism. They are not only against any revolt by the
annexed regions; they are against any restoration of
their independence, even a peaceful one! Listen to this:

“Social-Democracy, rejecting all responsibility for the
consequences of the policy of oppression pursued by imperialism,
and conducting the sharpest struggle against them, does not
by any means favour the erection of new frontierposts in Europe or the re-erection of those swept
away byimperialism” (the authors’ italics).

Today “imperialism has swept away the frontier posts” between
Germany and Belgium and between Russia and
Galicia. International Social-Democracy, if you please, ought to
be against their re-erection in general, whatever the means. In
1905, “in the era of imperialism”, when Norway’s autonomous Diet
proclaimed her secession from
Sweden, and Sweden’s war against Norway, as preached by the
Swedish reactionaries, did not take place, what with the
resistance of the Swedish workers and tile international
imperialist situation—Social-Democracy ought to have been
against Norway’s secession, since it undoubtedly meant “the
erection of now frontier posts in Europe”!!

This is downright annexationism. There is no need to refute it
because it refutes itself. No socialist party would risk taking
this stand: “We oppose annexations in general but we sanction
annexations for Europe or tolerate them once they have been
made”....

We need deal only with the theoretical sources of the error that
has led our Polish comrades to such a
patent...
“impossibility”. We shall say further on why there is
no reason to make exceptions for “Europe”. The following two
phrases from the theses will explain the other sources of the
error:

“Wherever the wheel of imperialism has rolled over and crushed
an already formed capitalist state, the political and economic
concentration of the capitalist world, paving the way for
socialism, takes place in the brutal form of imperialist
oppression....”

This justification of annexations is not Marxism but
Struveism. Russian Social-Democrats who remember the
1890s in Russia have a good knowledge of this manner of
distorting Marxism, which is common to Struve, Cunow, Legien and
Co. In another of the theses (II, 3) of the Polish comrades we
read the following, specifically about the
German Struveists, the so-called “social-imperialists”:

(The slogan of self-determination) “provides the
social-imperialists with an opportunity, by demonstrating the
illusory nature of that slogan, to represent our struggle
against national oppression as historically unfounded
sentimentality, thereby undermining the faith of the
proletariat in the scientific validity of the Social-Democratic
programme....”

This means that the authors consider the position of the German
Struveists “scientific”! Our congratulations.

One “trifle”, however, brings down this amazing argument which
threatens to show that the Lensches, Cunows and Parvuses are
right in comparison to us: it is that the Lensches are
consistent people in their own way and in issue No. 8-9 of the
chauvinist German Glocke--we deliberately
quoted it in our theses—Lensch demonstrates
simultaneously both the “scientific invalidity” of the
self-determination slogan (the Polish Social-Democrats
apparently believe that this argument of Lensch’s is
irrefutable, as can be seen from their arguments in the theses
we have quoted) and the “scientific invalidity” of the
slogan against annexations!!

For Lensch had an excellent understanding of that simple truth
which we pointed out to those Polish colleagues who showed no
desire to reply to our statement: there is no difference “either
political or economic”, or even logical, between the
“recognition” of self-determination and the
“protest” against
annexations. If the Polish comrades regard the arguments of the
Lensches against self-determination to he irrefutable, there is
one fact that has to be accepted: the Lensches also use
all these arguments to oppose the struggle against
annexations.

The theoretical error that underlies all the arguments of our
Polish colleagues has led them to the point of becoming
inconsistent annexationists.

5. Why Are Social-Democrats Against Annexations?

In our view the answer is obvious: because annexation violates
the self-determination of nations, or, in other words, is a form
of national oppression.

In the view of the Polish Social-Democrats there have to be
special explanations of why we are against annexations,
and it is these (I, 3 in the theses) that inevitably enmesh the
authors in a further series of contradictions.

They produce two reasons to “justify” our opposition to
annexations (the “scientifically valid” arguments of the
Lensches notwithstanding):

First: “To the assertion that annexations in Europe are
essential for the military security of a victorious imperialist
state, the Social-Democrats counterpose the fact that
annexations only serve to sharpen antagonisms, thereby
increasing the danger of war....”

This is an inadequate reply to the Lensches because their chief
argument is not that annexations are a military necessity but
that they are economically progressive and under
imperialism mean concentration. Where is the logic if the Polish
Social-Democrats in the same breath recognise the progressive
nature of such a concentration, refusing to re-erect
frontier posts in Europe that have been swept away by
imperialism, and protest against annexations?

Furthermore, the danger of what wars is increased by
annexations? Not imperialist wars, because they have other
causes: the chief antagonisms in the present imperialist war are
undoubtedly those between Germany and Britain, and between
Germany and Russia. These antagonisms have nothing to do with
annexations. It is the danger of national
wars and
national revolts that is increased. But how can one declare
national wars to be impossible in “the era of
imperialism”, on the one hand, and then speak of the
“danger” of national wars, on the other? This is not logical.

The second argument: Annexations “create a gulf between the
proletariat of the ruling nation and that of the oppressed
nation... the proletariat of the oppressed nation would unite
with its bourgeoisie and regard the proletariat of the ruling
nation as its enemy. Instead of the proletariat waging an
international class struggle against the international
bourgeoisie it would be split and ideologically corrupted...”

We fully agree with these arguments. But is it logical to put
forward simultaneously two arguments on the same question
which cancel each other out. In S. 3 of the first part
of the theses we find the above arguments that regard
annexations as causing a split in the proletariat, and
next to it, in S. 4, we are told that we must oppose the
annulment of annexations already effected in Europe and favour
“the education of tire working masses of the oppressed and the
oppressor nations in a spirit of solidarity in struggle”. If the
annulment of annexations is reactionary “sentimentality”,
annexations must not he said to create a “gulf” between
sections of the “proletariat” and cause a “split”, but should,
on the contrary, he regarded as a condition for the bringing
together of the proletariat of different nations.

We say: In order that we may have the strength to accomplish the
socialist revolution and overthrow the bourgeoisie, the workers
must unite more closely and this close union is promoted by the
struggle for self-determination, i.e., the struggle against
annexations. We are consistent. But the Polish comrades who say
that European annexations are “non-annullable” and national
wars, “impossible”, defeat themselves by contending “against”
annexations with the use of arguments about national
wars! These arguments are to the effect that annexations
hamper the drawing together and fusion of workers of
different nations!

In other words, the Polish Social-Democrats, in order to contend
against annexations, have to draw for arguments on the
theoretical stock they themselves reject in
principle.

6. Is it Right to Contrast “Europe” With the
Colonies in the Present Question?

Our theses say that the demand for the immediate liberation of
the colonies is as “impracticable” (that is, it cannot be
effected without a number of revolutions and is not stable
without socialism) under capitalism as the self-determination of
nations, the election of civil servants by the people, the
democratic republic, and so on—and, furthermore, that the
demand for the liberation of the colonies is nothing more than
“the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination”.

The Polish comrades have not answered a single one of these
arguments. They have tried to differentiate between “Europe” and
the colonies. For Europe alone they become inconsistent
annexationists by refusing to annul any annexations once these
have been made. As for the Colonies, they demand
unconditionally: “Get out of the colonies!”

Russian socialists must put forward the demand: “Get out of
Turkestan, Khiva, Bukhara, etc.”, hut, it is alleged, they would
be guilty of “utopianism”, “unscientific sentimentality” and so
on if they demanded a similar freedom of secession for Poland,
Finland, the Ukraine, etc. British socialists must demand: “Get
out of Africa, India, Australia”, but not out of Ireland. What
are the theoretical grounds for a distinction that is so
patently false? This question cannot be evaded.

The chief “ground” of those opposed to self-determination is its
“impracticability”. The same idea, with a nuance, is expressed
in the reference to “economic and political concentration”.

Obviously, concentration also comes about with the
annexation of colonies. There was formerly an economic
distinction between the colonies and the European
peoples—at least, the majority of the latter—the
colonies having been drawn into commodity exchange but
not into capitalist production. imperialism changed
this. Imperialism is, among other things, the export of
capital. Capitalist production is being transplanted to
the colonies at an ever increasing rate. They cannot he
extricated from dependence on European finance capital. From the
military standpoint,
as well as from the standpoint of expansion,
tile separation of tile colonies is practicable, as a general
rule, only under socialism; under capitalism it is practicable
only by way of exception or at the cost of a series of revolts
and revolutions both in the colonies and the metropolitan
countries.

The greater part of the dependent nations in Europe are
capitalistically more developed than the colonies (though not
all, the exceptions being the Albanians and many non-Russian
peoples in Russia) But it is just this that generates greater
resistance to national oppression and annexations! Precisely
because of this, the development of capitalism is more
secure in Europe under any political conditions, including
those of separation, than in the colonies.... “There,” the
Polish comrades say about the colonies (I, 4), “capitalism is
still confronted with the task of developing tile
productive forces independently....” This is even more
noticeable in Europe: capitalism is undoubtedly developing the
productive forces more vigorously, rapidly and independently in
Poland, Finland, the Ukraine and Alsace than in India,
Turkestan, Egypt and other straightforward colonies. In a
commodity producing society, no independent development, or
development of any sort whatsoever, is possible without
capital. In Europe the dependent nations have both their
own capital and easy access to it on a wide range of
terms. The colonies have no capital of their own, or
none to speak of, and under finance capital no colony can obtain
any except on terms of political submission. What then, in face
of all this, is the significance of the demand to liberate the
colonies immediately and unconditionally? Is it not clear that
it is more “utopian” in the vulgar, caricature-“Marxist” sense
of the word, “utopian”, in the sense in which it is used by the
Struves, Lenches, Cunows, with tile Polish comrades
unfortunately following in their footsteps? Any deviation from
the ordinary, the commonplace, as well as everything that is
revolutionary, is here labeled “utopianism”. But revolutionary
movements of all kinds—including national
movements—are more possible, more practicable, more
stubborn, more conscious and more difficult to defeat in Europe
than they are in the
colonies.

Socialism, say the Polish comrades (I, 3), “will be able to give
the underdeveloped peoples of tile colonies unselfish,
cultural aid without ruling over them”. This is perfectly
true. But what grounds are there for supposing that a great
nation, a great state that goes over to socialism, will not he
able to attract a small, oppressed European nation by
means of “unselfish cultural aid”? It is the freedom to secede
“granted” to the colonies by the Polish
Social-Democrats that will attract the small but
cultured and politically exacting oppressed nations of
Europe to union with great socialist states, because under
socialism a great state will mean so many hours
less work a day and so much more pay a
day. The masses of working people, as they liberate themselves
from the bourgeois yoke, will gravitate irresistibly
towards union and integration with the great, advanced socialist
nations for the sake of that “cultural aid”, provided
yesterday’s oppressors do not infringe on the long-oppressed
nations’ highly developed democratic feeling of self-respect,
and provided they are granted equality in everything, including
state construction, that of, experience in organising
“their own” state. Under capitalism this “experience”
means war, isolation, seclusion, and the narrow egoism of the
small privileged nations (Holland, Switzerland). Under socialism
the working people themselves will nowhere consent to seclusion
merely for the above-mentioned purely economic motives, while
the variety of political forms, freedom to secede, and
experience in state organisation—there will he all this
until the state in all its forms withers away—will be the
basis of a prosperous cultured life and an earnest that the
nations will draw closer together and integrate at an ever
faster pace.

By setting the colonies aside and contrasting them to Europe the
Polish comrades step into a contradiction which immediately
brings down the whole of their fallacious argument.

7. Marxism or Proudhonism?

By way of an exception, our Polish comrades parry our reference
to Marx’s attitude towards the separation of Ireland directly
and not indirectly. What is their objection?
References to
Marx’s position from 1848 to 1871, they say, are “not of the
slightest value”. The argument advanced in support of this
unusually irate and peremptory assertion is that “at one and the
same time” Marx opposed the strivings far independence of the
“Czechs, South Slavs.
etc.”^^(105)^^

The argument is so very irate because it is so very
unsound. According to the Polish Marxists, Marx was simply a
muddlehead who “in one breath” said contradictory things! This
is altogether untrue, and it is certainly not Marxism. It is
precisely the demand for “concrete” analysis, which our Polish
comrades insist on, but do not themselves apply, that
makes it necessary for us to investigate whether Marx’s
different attitudes towards different concrete “national”
movements did not spring from one and the same
socialist outlook.

Marx is known to have favoured Polish independence in
the interests of European democracy in its struggle
against the power and influence—or, it might he said,
against the omnipotence and predominating reactionary
influence—of tsarism. That this attitude was
correct wits most clearly and practically demonstrated in 1849,
when the Russian serf army crushed the national liberation and
revolutionary-democratic rebellion in Hungary. From that time
until Man’s death, and even later, until 1890,when there was a
danger that tsarism, allied with France, would wage a
reactionary war against a non-imperialist and
nationally independent Germany, Engels stood first and foremost
for a struggle against tsarism. It was for this reason, and
exclusively for this reason, that Marx and Engels were
opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and South
Slavs. A simple reference to what Marx and Engels wrote in 1848
and 1841) will prove to anyone who is interested in Marxism in
real earnest and not merely for the purpose of brushing Marxism
aside, that Marx and Engels at that time drew a clear
and definite distinction between “whole reactionary
nations” serving as “Russian outposts” in Europe, and
“revolutionary nations” namely, the Germans, Poles and
Magyars. This is a fact. And it was indicated at the
timewith incontrovertible truth: in 1848
revolutionary nations fought for liberty, whose principal enemy
was tsarism,
whereas the Czechs, etc., were in fact reactionary
nations, and outposts of tsarism.

What is the lesson to be drawn from this concrete
example which must he analysed concretely if there is
any desire to be true to Marxism? Only this: (1) that the
interests of the liberation of a number of big and very big
nations in Europe rate higher than the interests of the movement
for liberation of small nations; (2) that the demand for
democracy must not be considered in isolation but on a
European—today we should say a world—scale.

That is all there is to it. There is no hint of any repudiation
of that elementary socialist principle which the Poles forget
but to which Marx was always faithful—that no
nation can be free if it oppresses other nations. If tile
concrete situation which confronted Marx when tsarism dominated
international politics were to repeat itself, for instance, in
the form of a few nations starting a socialist revolution (as a
bourgeois-democratic revolution was started in Europe in 1848),
and other nations serving as the chief bulwarks of
bourgeois reaction—then me too would have to be in favour
of a revolutionary war against the latter, in favour of
“crushing” them, in favour of destroying all their outposts, no
matter what small-nation movements arose in them. Consequently,
instead of rejecting any examples of Marx’s tactics—this
would mean professing Marxism while abandoning it in practice—we
must analyse them concretely and draw invaluable lessons for
the future. The several demands of democracy, including
self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small
part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist)
world movement. In individual concrete casts, the part
may contradict the whole; if so, it must be
rejected. It is possible that the republican movement in one
country may be merely an instrument of the clerical or
financial-monarchist intrigues of other countries; if so,
we must not support this particular, concrete
movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a
republic from the programme of international Social-Democracy on
these grounds.

In what way has the concrete situation changed between the
periods of 1848–71 and 1898–1916 (I take the most important
landmarks of imperialism as a period: from the
Spanish-American
imperialist war to the European imperialist war)? Tsarism has
manifestly and indisputably ceased to be the chief mainstay of
reaction, first, because it is supported by international
finance capital, particularly French, and, secondly, because of
1905. At that time the system of big national states—the
democracies of Europe—was bringing democracy and socialism
to tile world in spite of
tsarism.[10]
Marx and Engels did not live
to see the period of imperialism. The system now is a handful of
imperialist “Great” Powers (five or six in number), each
oppressing other nations: and this oppression is a
source for artificially retarding the collapse of capitalism,
and artificially supporting opportunism and social-chauvinism in
the imperialist nations which dominate the world. At that time,
West-European democracy, liberating the big nations, was opposed
to tsarism, which used certain small-nation movements for
reactionary ends. Today, the socialist proletariat, split into
chauvinists, “social-imperialists”, on the one hand, and
revolutionaries, on the other, is confronted by an
alliance of tsarist imperialism and advanced capitalist,
European, imperialism, which is based on their common oppression
of a number of nations.

Such are the concrete changes that have taken place in the
situation, and it is just these that; the Polish
Social-Democrats ignore, in spite of their promise to he
concrete! Hence the concrete change in the application
of the same socialist principles: formerly the main
thing was to fight “against tsarism” (and against certain
small-nation movements
that it was using for
undemocratic ends), and for the greater revolutionary peoples of
the West; the main thing today is to stand against the
united, aligned front of the imperialist powers, the imperialist
bourgeoisie and the social-imperialists, and for the
utilisation of all national movements against imperialism for
the purposes of the socialist revolution. The more
purely proletarian the struggle against the general
imperialist front now is, the more vital, obviously, is the
internationalist principle: “No nation can be free if it
oppresses other nations”.

In the name of their doctrinaire concept of social
revolution, the Proudhonists ignored the international role of
Poland and brushed aside the national movements. Equally
doctrinaire is the attitude of the Polish Social-Democrats, who
break up the international front of struggle against
the social-imperialists, and (objectively) help the latter by
their vacillations on the question of annexations. For it is
precisely the international front of proletarian struggle that
has changed in relation to the concrete position of the small
nations: at that time (1848–71) the small nations were important
as the potential allies either of “Western democracy” and the
revolutionary nations, or of tsarism; now (1898–1914) that is no
longer so; today they are important as one of the nutritive
media of the parasitism and, consequently, the
social-imperialism of the “dominant nations”. The important
thing is not whether one-fiftieth or one-hundredth of the small
nations are liberated before the socialist revolution, but the
fact that in the epoch of imperialism, owing to objective
causes, the proletariat has been split into two international
camps, one of which has been corrupted by the crumbs that fall
from the table of the dominant-nation bourgeoisie—obtained, among other things, from the double or triple
exploitation of small nations—while the other cannot
liberate itself without liberating the small nations. without
educating the masses in an anti-chauvinist, i.e.,
anti-annexationist, i.e., “self-determinationist”, spirit.

This, the most important aspect of the question, is ignored by
our Polish comrades, who do not view things from the
key position in the epoch of imperialism, the
standpoint of the division of the international proletariat into
two camps.

Here are some other concrete examples of their
Proudhonism: (1) their attitude to the Irish rebellion of 1916,
of which later: (2) the declaration in the theses (11, 3, end of
S. 3) that the slogan of socialist revolution “must not be
overshadowed by anything”. The idea that the slogan of socialist
revolution can he “overshadowed” by linking it up with
a consistently revolutionary position on all questions,
including the national question, is certainly profoundly
anti-Marxist.

The Polish Social-Democrats consider our programme
“national-reformist”. Compare these two practical proposals:
(1) for autonomy (Polish theses, III, 4), and (2) for freedom to
secede. It is in this, and in this alone, that our programmes
differ! And is it not clear that it is precisely the first
programme that is reformist and not the second’ A reformist
change is one which leaves intact the foundations of the power
of the ruling class and is merely a concession leaving its power
unimpaired. A revolutionary change undermines the
foundations of power. A reformist national programme does
not abolish all the privileges of the ruling
nation; it does ,lot establish complete equality; it
does not abolish national oppression in all its
forms. An “autonomous” nation does not enjoy rights equal
to those of the “ruling” nation; our Polish comrades could not
have failed to notice this had they not (like our old
Economists) obstinately avoided making an analysis of
political concepts and categories. Until 1905
autonomous Norway, as a part of Sweden, enjoyed tile widest
autonomy, hut she was not Sweden’s equal. Only by her free
secession was her equality manifested inpractice and proved (and let us add in parenthesis
that: it was this free secession that created the basis for a
more intimate and more democratic association, founded on
equality of rights). As long as Norway was merely autonomous,
the Swedish aristocracy had one additional privileges; and
secession did not “mitigate” this privilege (the essence of
reformism lies in mitigating an evil and not in
destroying it), but eliminated it altogether
(the principal criterion of the revolutionary character
of a programme).

Incidentally, autonomy, as a reform, differs in
principle from freedom to Recede, as a revolutionary
measure. This is unquestionable. Bat as everyone knows, in
practice a reform
is often merely a step towards revolution. It
is autonomy that enables a nation forcibly retained within the
boundaries of a given state to crystallise into a nation, to
gather, assess and organise its forces, and to select the most
opportune moment for a declaration ... in the
“Norwegian” spirit: We, the autonomous diet of such-and-such a
nation, or of such-and-such a territory, declare that
the Emperor of all the Russias has ceased to be King of Poland,
etc. The usual “objection” to this is that such questions are
decided by wars and not by declarations. True: in the vast
majority of cases they are decided by wars (just as questions of
the form of government of big states are decided, in the vast
majority of cases, only by was and revolutions). However, it
would do no harm to reflect whether such an “objection”
to the political programme of a revolutionary party is
logical. Are we opposed to wars and revolutions for
what is just and beneficial to the proletariat, for
democracy and socialism?

“But we cannot be in favour of a war between great nations, in
favour of the slaughter of twenty million people for the sake
of the problematical liberation of a small nation with a
population of perhaps ten or twenty millions!” Of course not!
And it does not mean that we throw complete national equality
out of our Programme; it means that the democratic interests of
one country must he subordinated to the democratic interests of
several and all countries. Let us assume that between
two great monarchies there is a little monarchy whose kinglet is
“hound” by blood and other ties to the monarchs of both
neighbouring countries. Let us further assume that the
declaration of a republic in the little country and the
expulsion of its monarch would in practice lead to a
war between the two neighbouring big countries for the
restoration of that or another monarch in the little
country. There is no doubt that all international
Social-Democracy, as well as the really internationalist section
of Social-Democracy in the little country, would beagainst substituting a republic for the monarchy in
this case. The substitution of a republic for a monarchy is not
an absolute, but one of the democratic demands, subordinate to
the interests of democracy (and still more, of course, to those
of the socialist proletariat) as a whole. A case like this would
in all probability not give rise to the slightest
disagreement
among Social-Democrats in any country. But if any
Social-Democrat were to propose on these grounds that
the demand for a republic be deleted altogether from the
programme of international Social-Democracy, he would certainly
be regarded as quite mad. He would be told that after all one
must not forget the elementary logical difference between the
general and the particular.

This example brings us, from a somewhat different angle, to the
question of the internationalist education of the
working class. Can such education—on the necessity and
urgent importance of which differences of opinion among the
Zimmerwald Left are inconceivable—be concretely
identical in great, oppressor nations and in small,
oppressed nations, in annexing nations and in annexed nations?

Obviously not. The way to the common goal-complete equality, the
closest association and tile eventual amalgamation of
all nations—obviously runs along different routes
in each concrete case, as, let us say, the way to a paint in the
centre of this page runs left from one edge and right, from the
opposite edge. If a Social-Democrat from a great, oppressing,
annexing nation, while advocating the amalgamation of nations in
general, were for one moment to forget that “his” Nicholas II,
“his” Wilhelm, George, Poincare, etc., also stand for
amalgamation with small nations (by means of
annexations)—Nicholas II for “amalgamation” with Galicia,
Wilhelm II for “amalgamation” with Belgium, etc.—such a
Social-Democrat would he a ridiculous doctrinaire in theory and
an abettor of imperialism in practice.

In the internationalist education of the workers of the
oppressor countries, emphasis must necessarily he laid on their
advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and
their fighting for it. Without this there can be no
internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every
Social-Democrat of an oppressor nation who fails to
conduct such propaganda as a scoundrel and an imperialist. This
is an absolute demand, even where the chance of
secession being possible and “practicable” before the
introduction of socialism is only one in a thousand.

It is our duty to teach the workers to be “indifferent” to
national distinctions. There is no doubt about that. But it must
not be the indifference of the annexationists.
A member of an oppressor nation must be “indifferent”
to whether small nations belong to his state or to
a neighboring state, or to themselves, according to where
their sympathies lie: without such “indifference” he is
not a Social-Democrat. To be an internationalist
Social-Democrat one must not think only of one’s own
nation, but place above it the interests of all
nations, their common liberty and equality. Everyone accepts
this in “theory” hut displays an annexationist indifference in
practice. There is the root of the evil.

On the other hand, a Social-Democrat from a small nation must
emphasise in his agitation the second word of our
general formula: “voluntary integration” of nations. He
may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, he in
favour of both the political independence of his nation
and its integration with the neighboring state of X, Y, Z,
etc. But in all cases he must fight against
small-nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation,
consider the whole and the general, subordinate the particular
to the general interest.

People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that
it is “contradictory” for the Social-Democrats of oppressor
nations to insist on the “freedom to secede”, while
Social-Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the “freedom to
integrate”. However, a little reflection will
show that there is not, and cannot be, any other road
to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other
road from the given situation to this goal.

And now we come to the specific position of Dutch and
Polish Social-Democrats.

8. The Specific and the General in the Position of the
Dutch and Polish Social-Democrat Internationalists

There is not the slightest doubt that the Dutch and Polish
Marxists who oppose self-determination are among the best
revolutionary and internationalist elements in international
Social-Democracy. How can it be then that their
theoretical arguments as we have seen, are a mass of errors?
There is not a single correct general argument, nothing but
imperialist Economism!

It is not at all due to the especially bad subjective qualities
of the Dutch and Polish comrades but to the specific
objective conditions in their countries. Both countries are:
(1) small and helpless in the present-day “system” of great powers;
(2) both are geographically situated between tremendously
powerful imperialist plunderers engaged in the most bitter
rivalry with each other (Britain and Germany; Germany and
Russia);
(3) in both there are terribly strong memories and
traditions of the times when they themselves were great
powers: Holland was once a colonial power greater than England,
Poland was more cultured and was a stronger great power than
Russia and Prussia;
(4) to this day both retain their privileges
consisting in the oppression of other peoples: the Dutch
bourgeois owns the very wealthy Dutch East Indies; the Polish
landed proprietor oppresses the Ukrainian and Byelorussian
peasant; the Polish bourgeois, the Jew, etc.

The particularity comprised in the combination of these four
points is not to be found in Ireland, Portugal (she was at one
time annexed to Spain), Alsace, Norway, Finland, the Ukraine,
the Lettish and Byelorussian territories or many others. And it
is this very peculiarity that is the real essence of
the matter! When the Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats reason
against self-determination, using general arguments,
i.e., those that concern imperialism in general, socialism in
general, democracy in general, national oppression in general,
we may truly say that they wallow in mistakes. But one has only
to discard this obviously erroneous shell of general
arguments and examine the essence of the question from
the standpoint of the specific conditions obtaining in
Holland and Poland for their particular position to become
comprehensible and quite legitimate. It may be said,
without any fear of sounding paradoxical, that when the Dutch
and Polish Marxists battle against self-determination they do
not say quite what they mean, or, to put it another way, mean
quite what they
say.[11]

We have already quoted one example in our
theses.[12]
Gorter is
against the self-determination of his own country but
in favour of self-determination for the Dutch East
Indies, oppressed as they are by “his” nation! Is it any wonder
that we see in him a more sincere internationalist and a
fellow-thinker who is closer to us than those who recognise
self-determination as verbally and hypocritically as Kautsky in
Germany, and Trotsky and Martov in Russia? The general and
fundamental principles of Marxism undoubtedly imply the duty to
struggle for the freedom to secede for nations that are
oppressed by “one’s own” nation, but they certainty do not
require the independence specifically of Holland to he made a
matter of paramount importance—Holland, which suffers most
from her narrow, callous, selfish and stultifying seclusion: let
the whole world burn, we stand aside from it all, “we” are
satisfied with our old spoils and the rich “left-overs”, the
Indies, “we” are not concerned with anything else!

Here is another example. Karl Radek, a Polish Social-Democrat,
who has done particularly great service by his determined
struggle for internationalism in German Social-Democracy
since the outbreak of war, made a Furious attack on
self-determination in an article entitled “The Right of Nations
to Self-Determination”
(Lichtstrahlen[20]—Left Radical monthly prohibited by the
Prussian censor,
edited by J. Borchardt—1915, December 5, Third Year of
Publication, No. 3). Ha quotes, incidentally, only
Dutch and Polish authorities in his support and propounds,
amongst others, the argument that self-determination fosters
the idea that “it is allegedly the duty of Social-Democrats to
support any struggle for independence”.

From the standpoint of general theory this argument is
outrageous, because it is clearly illogical: first, no
democratic demand can fail to give rise to abuses, unless the
specific is subordinated to the general; we are not obliged to
support either “any” struggle for independence or “any”
republican or anti-clerical movement. Secondly, no formula for
the struggle against national oppression can fail to suffer from
the same “shortcoming”. Radek himself in Berner
Tagwacht used the formula (1915, Issue 253): “Against old
and new annexations.” Any Polish nationalist will legitimately
“deduce” from this formula: “Poland is an annexment, I am
against annexations, i.e., I am for the independence of
Poland.” Or I recall Rosa Luxemburg saying in an article written
in
1908,[21] that the formula: “against
national oppression” was quite adequate. But any Polish
nationalist would say—and quite justly—that
annexation is one of the forms of national oppression,
consequently, etc.

However, bake Poland’s
specific conditions in place of these general
arguments: her independence today is “impracticable”
without wars or revolutions. To be in favour of an all-European
war merely for the sake of restoring Poland is to be a
nationalist of the worst sort, and to place the interests of a
small number of Poles above those of the hundreds of millions
of people who suffer from war. Such, indeed, are the “Fracy”
(the Right wing of the
P.S.P.)[22] who are
socialists only in word, and compared with whom the Polish
Social-Democrats are a thousand times right. To raise the
question of Poland’s independence today, with the
existing alignment of the neighbouring
imperialist powers, is really to run after a will-o’-the-wisp,
plunge into narrow-minded nationalism and forget the necessary
premise of an all-European or at least a Russian and a German
revolution. To have put forward in 1908–14 freedom of
coalition in Russia as an independent slogan would also have meant running after a will-o’-the-wisp, and would, objectively,
have helped the Stolypin labour party (now the Potresov-Gvozdyov party, which, incidentally, is the same thing). But it would be
madness to remove freedom of coalition in general from the programme of Social-Democracy!

A third and, perhaps, the most important example. We read in the Polish theses (III, end of 82) that the idea of an independent Polish buffer state is opposed on the grounds that it is an “inane utopia of small impotent groups. Put into effect, it would mean the creation of a tiny fragment of a Polish state
that would be a military colony of one or another group of Great
Powers, a plaything of their military or economic interests, an
area exploited by foreign capital, and a battlefield in future
war”. This is all very true
when used as an argument
against the slogan of Polish independence
today, because even a revolution in Poland alone would
change nothing and would only divert the attention of
the masses in Poland from the main thing—the
connection between their struggle and that of the
Russian and German proletariat. It is not a paradox but a fact
that today the Polish proletariat as such call help the cause of
socialism and freedom, including the freedom of
Poland, only by joint struggle with the
proletariat of the neighbouring countries, against the
narrow Polish nationalists. Tile great historical
service rendered by the Polish Social-Democrats in the struggle
against the nationalists cannot possibly be denied.

But these same arguments, which are true from the standpoint of
Poland’s specific conditions in the present
epoch, are manifestly untrue in the general form in
which they are presented. So long as there are wars, Poland
will always remain a battlefield in wars
between Germany and Russia, hut this is no argument
against greater political liberty (and, therefore, against
political independence) in the periods between
wars. The same applies to the arguments about exploitation by
foreign capital and Poland’s role as a plaything of foreign
interests. The Polish Social-Democrats cannot, at the moment,
raise the slogan of Poland’s independence, for the Poles, as
proletarian internationalists, can do nothing about it
without stooping, like the “Fracy”, to humble servitude to
one of the imperialist monarchies. But it is
not indifferent to the Russian and German workers
whether Poland is independent, they take part in annexing her
(and that would mean educating the Russian and German workers
and peasants in the basest turpitude and their consent to play
the part of executioner of other peoples).

The situation is, indeed, bewildering, but there is a way out in
which all participants would remain internationalists:
the Russian and German Social-Democrats by demanding for Poland
unconditional “freedom to secede”; the Polish
Social-Democrats by working for the unity of the proletarian
struggle in both small and big countries without putting forward
the slogan of Polish independence for the given epoch
or the given period.

8. Engels Letter to Kautsky

In his pamphlet Socialism and Colonial Politics
(Berlin, 1907), Kautsky, who was then still a Marxist, published
a letter written to him by Engels, dated September 12, 1882,
which is extremely interesting in relation to the question under
discussion. Here is the principal part of the letter.

“In my opinion the colonies proper, i.e., the countries occupied
by a European population-Canada, the Cape,
Australia—will all become independent; on the other hand,
the countries inhabited by a native population, which are simply
subjugated-India, Algeria, the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish
possessions-must be taken over for the time being by the
proletariat and led as rapidly as possible towards
independence. How this process will develop is difficult to
say. India will perhaps, indeed very probably, make a
revolution, and as a proletariat in process of self-emancipation
cannot conduct any colonial wars, it would have to be
allowed to run its course; it would not pass off without all
sorts of destruction, of course, hut that sort of thing is
inseparable from all revolutions. The same might also take place
elsewhere, e.g., in Algeria and Egypt, and would certainly be
the best thing for us. We shall have enough to do at
home. Once Europe is reorganised, and North America, that will
furnish such colossal power and such an example that the
semi-civilised countries will of themselves follow in their
wake; economic needs, if anything, will see to that. But as to
what social and political phases these countries will then have
to pass through before they likewise arrive at socialist
organisation, I think we today can advance only rather idle
hypotheses. One thing alone is certain: the victorious
proletariat can force noblessings of any kind
upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by
so doing. Which of course by no means excludes defensive
wars of various
kinds....”[23]

Engels does not at all suppose that the “economic” alone will
directly remove all difficulties. An economic revolution will be
a stimulus to all peoples to strive for
socialism; but at the same time revolutions—against the
socialist state—and wars are possible. Politics
will inevitably adapt themselves to the economy, but not
immediately
or smoothly, not simply, not directly. Engels
mentions as “certain” only one, absolutely internationalist,
principle, and this he applies to all “foreign
nations”, i.e., not to colonial nations only: to force blessings
upon them would mean to undermine the victory of the
proletariat.

Just because the proletariat has carried out a social revolution
it will not become holy and immune from errors and
weaknesses. But it will be inevitably led to realise this truth
by possible errors (and selfish interest—attempts to saddle
others).

We Of the Zimmerwald Left all hold the same conviction as
Kautsky, for example, held before his desertion of Marxism for
the defence of chauvinism in 1914, namely, that the socialist
revolution is quite possible in the very near future—“any day”, as Kautsky himself once put it. National
antipathies will not disappear so quickly: the hatred—and
perfectly legitimate hatred—of an oppressed nation for its
oppressor will last for a while; it will evaporate only
after the victory of socialism and after the
final establishment of completely democratic relations between
nations. If we are to be faithful to socialism we must even now
educate the masses in the spirit of internationalism, which is
impossible in oppressor nations without advocating freedom of
secession for oppressed nations.

10. The Irish Rebellion of 1916

Our theses were written before the outbreak of this rebellion,
which must be the touchstone of our theoretical views.

The views of the opponents of self-determination lead to the
conclusion that the vitality of small nations oppressed by
imperialism has already been sapped, that they cannot play any
role against imperialism, that support of their purely national
aspirations will lead to nothing, etc. The imperialist war of
1914–16 has provided facts which refute such
conclusions.

The war proved to be an epoch of crisis for the West-European
nations, and for imperialism as a whole. Every crisis
discards the conventionalities, tears away the outer
wrappings,
sweeps away the obsolete and reveals the underlying
springs and forces. What has it revealed from the standpoint of
the movement of oppressed nations! In the colonies there have
been a number of attempts at rebellion, which the
oppressor nations, naturally did all they could to hide by means
of a military censorship. Nevertheless, it is known that in
Singapore the British brutally suppressed a mutiny
Among their Indian troops; that there were attempts at rebellion
in French Annam (see Nashe Slovo) and in the German
Cameroons (see the Junius
pamphlet[13]
);
that in Europe, on the one hand, there was a
rebellion in Ireland, which the “freedom-loving” English, who
did not dare to extend conscription to Ireland, suppressed by
executions, and, on the other, the Austrian Government passed
the death sentence on the deputies of the Czech Diet “for
treason”, and shot whole Czech regiments for the same “crime”.

This list is, of course, far from complete. Nevertheless, it
proves that, owing to the crisis of imperialism, the
flames of national revolt have flared up both in the
colonies and in Europe, and that national sympathies and
antipathies have manifested themselves in spite of the Draconian
threats and measures of repression. All this before the crisis
of imperialism hit its peak; the power of the imperialist
bourgeoisie was yet to be undermined (this may he brought
about by a war of “attrition” but has not yet happened) and the
proletarian movements in the imperialist countries were
still very feeble. What will happen when the war has
caused complete exhaustion, or when, in one state at
least, the power of the bourgeoisie has been shaken under the
blows of proletarian struggle, as that of tsarism in 1905?

On May 9, 1916, there appeared in Berner Tagwacht the
organ of the Zimmerwald group, including some of the Leftists,
an article on the Irish rebellion entitled “Their Song Is Over”
and signed with the initials
K. R.[24] It described the
Irish rebellion as being nothing more nor less than a “putsch”,
for, as the author argued, “the Irish question was an agrarian
one”, the peasants had been pacified by reforms, and
the nationalist movement remained
only a “purely urban,
petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation
it caused, had not much social backing”.

It is not surprising that this monstrously doctrinaire and
pedantic assessment coincided with that of a Russian
national-liberal Cadet, Mr. A. Kulisher
(Rech[25] No. 102, April 15,
1916), who also labeled the rebellion “the Dublin putsch”.

It is to be hoped that, in accordance with the adage, “it’s an
ill wind that blows nobody any good”, many comrades,
who were not aware of the morass they were sinking into by
repudiating “self-determination” and by treating the national
movements of small nations with disdain, will have their eyes
opened by the “accidental” coincidence of opinion held by a
Social-Democrat and a representative of the imperialist
bourgeoisie!!

The term “putsch”, in its scientific sense, may be employed
only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a
circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no
sympathy among the masses. The centuries-old Irish national
movement, having passed through various stages and combinations
of class interest, manifested itself, in particular, in a mass
Irish National Congress in America Vorworts, March 20,
1916) which called for Irish independence; it also
manifested itself in street fighting conducted by a section of
the urban petty bourgeoisie and a section ofthe
workers after a long period of mass agitation,
demonstrations, suppression of newspapers, etc. Whoever calls
such a rebellion a “putsch” is either a hardened
reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging
a social revolution as a living phenomenon.

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable
without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe,
without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty
bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement
of the politically non-conscious proletarian and
semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners,
the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression,
etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social
revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We
are
for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We
are for imperialism”, and that will he a social revolution! Only
those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify
the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”.

Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never
live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution
without understanding what revolution is.

The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a bourgeois-democratic
revolution. It consisted of a series of battles in which
all the discontented classes, groups and elements of
the population participated. Among these there were masses
imbued with the crudest prejudices, with the vaguest
slid most fantastic aims of struggle; there were small groups
which accepted Japanese money, there were speculators and
adventurers, etc. But objectively, the mass movement
was breaking the hack of tsarism and paving the way for
democracy; for this reason the class-conscious workers led it.

The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything
other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and
sundry oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections
of tile petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will
participate in it—without such participation, mass
struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is
possible—and just as inevitably will they bring into the
movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their
weaknesses slid errors. But objectively they will
attack capital, and the class-conscious vanguard of the
revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective
truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly
fragmented, mass struggle, will he able to unite and direct it,
capture power, seize the banks, expropriate the trusts which all
hate (though for difficult reasons!), and introduce other
dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the
overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism,
which, however, will by no means immediately “purge” itself of
petty-bourgeois slag.

Social-Democracy, we road in the Polish theses (I, 4), “must
utilise the struggle of the young colonial bourgeoisie against
European imperialism in order to sharpen the revolutionary
crisis in Europe”. (Authors’ italics.)

Is it not clear that it is least of all permissible to contrast
Europe to the colonies in this respect? The struggle of
the
oppressed nations in Europe, a struggle capable of
going all the way to insurrection and street fighting, capable
of breaking down tile iron discipline of the army and martial
law, will “sharpen the revolutionary crisis ill Europe” to an
infinitely greater degree than a much more developed rebellion
in a remote colony. A blow delivered against tile power of the
English imperialist bourgeoisie by a rebellion in Ireland is a
hundred times more significant politically than a blow of equal
force delivered in Asia or in Africa.

The French chauvinist press recently reported the publication in
Belgium of the eightieth issue of an illegal journal, Free
Belgium.[26] Of course, the chauvinist
press of France very often lies, but this piece of news seems to
he true. Whereas chauvinist and Kautskyite German
Social-Democracy has failed to establish a free press for itself
during the two years of war, and has meekly borne the yoke of
military censorship (only the Left Radical elements, to their
credit be it said, have published pamphlets and manifestos, in
spite of the censorship)—an oppressed civilised nation
has reacted to a military oppression unparalleled in ferocity by
establishing an organ of revolutionary protest! The dialectics
of history are such that small nations, powerless as an
independent factor in the struggle against imperialism,
play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli,
which help the real anti-imperialist force, the
socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene.

The general staffs in the current war are doing their utmost to
utilise any national and revolutionary movement in the enemy
camp: the Germans utilise the Irish rebellion, tire French—the Czech movement, etc. They are acting quite correctly
from their own point of view. A serious war would not be treated
seriously if advantage were not taken of the enemy’s slightest
weakness and if every opportunity that presented itself were not
seized upon, the more, so since it is impossible to know
beforehand at what moment, whore, and with what force some
powder magazine will “explode”. We would be very poor
revolutionaries if, in the proletariat’s great war of Liberation
for socialism, we did not know how to utilise every
popular movement against every single disaster
imperialism brings in order to intensify and extend the
crisis. If we were, on the one
hand, to repeat in a thousand
keys the declaration that we are “opposed” to all national
oppression and, on the other, to describe the heroic revolt of
the most mobile and enlightened section of certain classes in an
oppressed nation against its oppressors as a “putsch”, we should
be sinking to the same level of stupidity as the Kautskyites.

It is the misfortune of the Irish that they rose prematurely,
before the European revolt of the proletariat had had
time to mature. Capitalism is not so harmoniously built
that the various sources of rebellion can immediately merge of
their own accord, without reverses and defeats. On the other
hand, the very fact that revolts do break out at different
times, in different places, and are of different kinds,
guarantees wide scope and depth to the general movement; but it
is only in premature, individual, sporadic and therefore
unsuccessful, revolutionary movements that the masses gain
experience, acquire knowledge, gather strength, and get to know
their real leaders, the socialist proletarians, and in this way
prepare for the general onslaught, just as certain strikes,
demonstrations, local and national, mutinies in the army,
outbreaks among the peasantry, etc., prepared the way for the
general onslaught in 1905.

11. Conclusion

Contrary to the erroneous assertions of the Polish Social-Democrats, the
demand for the self-determination of nations has
played no less a role in our Party agitation than, for example,
the arming of the people, the separation of the church from the
state, the election of civil servants by the gene pie and other
points the philistines have called “utopian”. the contrary, the
strengthening of the national movements after 1905 naturally
prompted more vigorous agitation by our Party, including a
number of articles in 1912–13, and the resolution of our Party
in 1913 giving a precise “anti-Kautskian” definition (i.e., one
that does not tolerate purely verbal “recognition”) of the
content of the
point.[14]

It will not do to overlook a fact which was revealed at
that early date: opportunists of various nationalities,
the Ukrainian Yorkevich, the Bundist Liebman, Scrnkovsky, the
Russian myrmidon of Potresov and Co., all spoke infavour of Rosa Luxemburg’s arguments against
self-determination! What for Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish
Social-Democrat, had been merely an incorrect theoretical
generalisation of tile specific conditions of the
movement in Poland, became objective opportunist
support for Great-Russian imperialism when actually’ applied to
more extensive circumstances, to conditions obtaining in a big
state instead of a small one, when applied on an
international scale instead of tile narrow Polish scale. The
history of trends in political thought (as distinct
from the views of individuals) has proved the correctness of our
programme.

Outspoken social-imperialists, such as Lensch still rail both
against self-determination and the renunciation of
annexations. As for tile Kautskyites, they
hypocritically recognise self-determination—Trotsky and
Martov are going the same way here in Russia. Both
of them, like Kautsky, say they favour
self-determination. What happens in practice? Take Trotsky’s
articles “The Nation and the Economy” in Nashe Slovo,
and you will find his usual eclecticism: on the one
hand, the economy unites nations and, on the
other, national oppression divides them. The
conclusion? The conclusion is that the prevailing hypocrisy
remains unexposed, agitation is dull and does not touch
upon what is most important, basic, significant and closely
connected with practice—one’s attitude to the
nation that is oppressed by “one’s own” nation. Martov and other
secretaries abroad simply preferred to forgot—a
profitable lapse of memory!—the struggle of their colleague
and fellow-member Semkovsky against self-determination,
In the legal press of the Gvozdyovites (Nash Golos)
Martov spoke in favour of self-determination, pointing
out the indisputable truth that during the imperialist war it
does not yet imply participation, etc., but evading the
main thing—he also evades it in the illegal, free
press!—which is that even in peace time Russia set
a world record for the oppression of nations with an imperialism
that is much more crude, medieval, Economically
backward and militarily bureaucratic. The Russian
Social-Democrat
who “recognises” tile self-determination of
nations more or less as it is recognised by Messrs. Plekhanov,
Potresov and Co., that is, without bothering to fight
for the freedom of secession for nations oppressed by tsarism,
is in fact an imperialist and a lackey of tsarism.

No matter what the subjective “good” intentions of Trotsky and
Martov may be, their evasiveness objectively supports
Russian social-imperialism. The epoch of imperialism has turned
all the “great” powers into the oppressors of a number of
nations, and the development of imperialism will inevitably lead
to a more definite division of trends in this question in
international Social-Democracy as well.

[10]
Ryazanov has published in Grunberg’ Archives of the History
of Socialism (1916. I) a very intersting article by Engels
on the Polish question, written in 1866. Engels emphasises that
the proletariat must recognize the political independence and
“self-determination” (“right to dispose itself” [These words are
in English in the original.]) of the great, major nations of
Europe, and points to the absurdity of the “principle of
nationalities” (particularly in its Bonapartist application),
i.e., of placing any small nation on the same level as these big
ones “And as is to Russia,” says Engels, “she could only be
mentioned as the detainer of an immense amount of stolen
property [i.e., oppressed nations] which would have been
disgorged on the day of
reckoning.”[27] Both
Bonapartism and tsarism utilise the small-nation
movements for their own benefit, against
European democracy.
—Lenin

[11]
Let us recall that all the Polish Social-Democrats
recognised self-determination in general in
their Zimmerwald declaration, although their formulation was
slightly different.
—Lenin